I'm not sure how this came about, but there's a perception that a healthy economy is harmful to the environment, despite all the evidence (see previous post) to the contrary.
Cap-and-Trade Could Cost Average Family $10,800 in Lost Income, Says Economist Arthur Laffer; Proposed Global Warming Policy Likened to 1970s-Era Energy Crunch
WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A cap-and-trade scheme
for controlling greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) would impose significant
economic costs on the U.S. economy and is not a sound policy response to
current concerns about global warming, says renown economist Arthur Laffer
in a new study released today.
"Dr. Laffer's analysis is another death knell for the cap-and-trade
approach to addressing concerns over carbon dioxide emissions," said Steven
Milloy, executive director of the Free Enterprise Education Institute
(FEEI), the nonprofit group sponsoring the study. "The Department of
Energy, Congressional Budget Office and, now, Dr. Laffer have all concluded
that cap- and-trade would be disastrous for the U.S. economy," added
"The Laffer paper confirms that cap-and-trade is a lose-lose
proposition," said Borelli. Given the well-established relationship between
economic prosperity and a clean environment, it's hard to see how harming
the economy won't also harm the environment," Borelli concluded.
"The Adverse Economic Impacts of Cap-and-Trade" is available online at
the following websites: http://www.demanddebate.com,
http://www.freeenterpriser.com, and http://www.junkscience.com.
Read the full article here.